Talk:Death of Tina Watson

Comments moved from main article

It is an awful piece of work, which despite the attempts of some contributors, continues with a string on unproven allegations. The principal author WWGB has constructed a piece which ignores many court findings. By replublishing, disproved rumour it runs contrary to professional writing practices. WWGB has little knowledge of court procedures. This can be seen in such an obvious error as describing the appeal as, "enacted". Appeals are not "enacted", they are determined. Legislation is "enacted". This is a pretty fundamental technical mistake. The issue of providing an alternate breathing source, was found baseless by the Court of Appeal, as was most of the other stuff WWGB complains of.

The principals of Wiki would do well to remove this topic until they can have a legal scholar prepare a proper account, as this man is in prison. These comments of mine won't last long, so I've embedded them between a string of *** to make them easy to remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by O o o (talk • contribs)

I am NOT the "principal author" of this article. That honour belongs to others.

The article does NOT state that the appeal was enacted. It states that the majority decision of the Court of Appeals to increase Watson's sentence was enacted. One meaning of the word "enact" is "put into effect". The Queensland Government put into effect (that is, "enacted") the court's decision.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." (WP:TRUTH) The article currently has a reasonable level of independent citations, although it can always be improved. Unreferenced opinions from an editor have no place in this article. Note, for example, "In sentancing [sic] Gabe Watson, it is clear the trial judge, threw away the evidence of her father and did not take it into account. Whether the learned judge considered the father's evidence as implausible, not credible, biased and unreliable, unscientific or outright lies is not disclosed by the sentancing remarks". This was uploaded here [1]. WWGB (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality?

I yesterday added some material from a lengthy article in the Birmingham News, which explicitly gave Gabe Watson's parents' reaction, something that had not previously been publicly reported, as far as I can tell. I think my summary was pretty neutrally stated. Someone today changed what I had done, which of course would be fine in theory, except that the additions were pretty clearly not NPOV, they were unsourced, and they really didn't properly belong in the section about Gabe's parents' reaction. So I reverted, and thought I would explain myself in a little more detail here on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunncon13 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Remove the Further incidents section. It heavily leans towards the prosecutions point of view in this case and cites a terrible journal as its evidence. Also Gabe was required to remove items placed at the grave by the graveyard staff after they had been left there for thirty days because their large size was interfering with graveyard maintenance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.71.152 (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to add independent evidence concerning graveyard staff requirements. WWGB (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The section is relevant as it was debated at Watson's arraignment with the judge ruling it was inadmissable at trial. Per WWGB, a reliable source reporting the reasons for the removals can be added. Wayne (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Motive?

I may have missed this - but has there been any discussion of a motive? I'm not sure why someone would pay so much to travel so far to undertake this act (planned or unplanned) with a new spouse. Was there any financial gain? Was there any history of violence? Was he liked and trusted by all family members before the diving incident? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.128.51.65 (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The media in Australia has reported a possible motive several times recently. If Tina's death had been accepted as accidental, Watson would have received $260,000 from Tina's life insurance and the dive insurance he took out on the day. Wayne (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Some concerns following a copy-edit of the article on September 29, 2015 (UTC)

I have just finished copy-editing the article. I have a few concerns:

1) In the second paragraph in the lead, we find the following sentence:

• While he was serving his term, authorities in Alabama flagged an intention to charge him with murder at a later date.

Although the actions of the authorities in Alabama are explained in some detail later in the article, and some readers will be able to guess what "flagged an intention" means, some readers will stumble at this phrase. I think it's a bit of legal jargon. What do you think of substituting another word or phrase here? Jonesey95 What you think?

2) The last sentence of the second paragraph in Death of Tina Watson#Incident is:

• He also stated that an ear problem prevented him from diving deeper to help her and that there was nothing in his training as a rescue diver "about how to get somebody" in trouble to the surface.

I'm wondering whether the words in the quote aren't too skimpy. I think the quote would be more effective if it included just a bit more of Gabe Watson's statement.

3) The section Death of Tina Watson#Investigation needs some work. Specifically, it needs better organization. I'm going to copy the paragraph here for ease of discussion. I'm also going to put into bold the related and/or repetitive words and phrases.

• As Tina Watson's death was unexpected, it was investigated by the State Coroner's office. A coronial inquiry was held, as is the usual practice in Australia. Gabe Watson gave evidence to the inquest through his lawyers and to the Queensland police. The incident came under investigation due to the implausible and conflicting statements given by Watson. He declined to return to Australia and did not testify during the inquest. During the inquest, prosecutors submitted evidence that Watson's story contradicted the record of his actions stored by his dive computer. They suggested the possibility that he turned off Tina's air regulator and held her until she was unconscious, then turned the air back on and let her sink before surfacing himself. As evidence, they described painstaking multiple re-enactments of various scenarios conducted by police divers. Tina's father claimed that Gabe Watson had asked Tina, shortly before their wedding, to increase her life insurance and make him the sole beneficiary.

1) The incident seems to have come under investigation for [at least] two reasons: Tina Watson's death was unexpected and Watson's implausible and conflicting statements. Perhaps these could be placed closer together and the sentences consolidated (that is, if the investigations were by the same governmental body; if not, the other governmental body should be given for the second mention of an investigation).

2) Regarding the sentence, "Gabe Watson gave evidence to the inquest through his lawyers and to the Queensland police," I assume that he gave evidence directly (i.e., not through his lawyers) to the Queensland police. If this is not true, and it was through, or with the assistance of, his lawyers, maybe that should be made clear. As it is now, the structure of this sentence is a bit odd.

3) In that same sentence it says, "Gabe Watson gave evidence to the inquest..." A bit later, it says Gabe Watson "declined to return to Australia and did not testify during the inquest." Perhaps a way could be found to consolidate these statements. Basically, in the first few sentences, we read about investigation - inquiry - inquest and then investigation - inquest. There is no need for all these words if the sentences are consolidated and organized better. If you want me to go ahead and work on it, I will, but it would be better if someone who has read the sources works on it.

4) At the end of Death of Tina Watson#Civil action commenced in Alabama, we read:

• ...Watson's U.S.-based lawyer, Bob Austin, added that his client would not be voluntarily "going back to Australia".

and near the beginning of Death of Tina Watson#Trial and sentence in Australia, we read that Gabe Watson

• travelled voluntarily from the United States to Australia in May 2009 to face trial.

There is no indication of when, or why, Gabe Watson changed his mind about returning to Australia.

5) The last three sentences of the section Death of Tina Watson#Appeal are:

• The findings on appeal were handed down on 18 September 2009. Two members allowed the prosecution's appeal, increasing Watson's period of incarceration by six months to a total of 18 months. One justice by minority opinion was in favour of dismissing the appeal.

It is left to the reader to guess that two versus one means that the appeal was allowed. If one is unfamiliar with the Australian legal system, this is a wild guess. I think it should be stated clearly what the appeals court's decision was.

6) The second sentence in Death of Tina Watson#Alabama investigation is:

• King petitioned Australia for the evidence held by police but was refused access until he gave an undertaking that the death penalty would not be imposed, as required under Australian law.

When I read this, I wondered what "gave an undertaking" meant. I had never heard that before. Is that a bit of legal jargon? Perhaps a more common word or phrase should be used here.

Well, that's all. Corinne (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"flagged an intention" and "gave an undertaking" are not clear written English that can be understood by all readers. Those phrases should be reworded if an editor or the sources can provide the actual intended meaning. If not, they should be tagged with {{clarify}} or a similar template.

As for the other issues, I would separate the issues of copy-editing (e.g. the whole inquest/investigation business), which a copy-editor should be able to handle, from the issues of confusing and conflicting sentences (e.g. Watson not going or going to Australia to face trial). Editors familiar with the sources should be able to explicate the latter. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you, Jonesey95 for your feedback. I'll work on improving the paragraph about the investigation/inquiry/inquest. Corinne (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Various questionable statements

Not really having the time to do a proper edit, and wanting the opinion from some others I'm just going to add some brief points here. Just looking at the description of the incident, several things are questionable. First of all, Gabe Watson's claim was that Tina signalled to return, he turned but noticed she wasn't following and was in fact sinking, with a panicked expression (indicating lack of control over her BCD, maybe beimg overweighted). At this point he grabbed her BCD and tried tugging her, and when that didn't work tried embracing her, trying to bring her up. He should at this point have tried to drop her weights and inflated her BCD, but being very inexperienced it's perfectly probable that he wouldn't realize this. At this point she (likely from panic) hit him in the face, knocking his mask sideways, which he needed both hands to fix. After fixing the mask he realixpzed his regulator was knocked out, and he went for his octopus (backup regulator). He saw Tina still sinking and found himself unable to catch her. Now, normally it's not a problem to catch up with a sinking diver, but likely he had inflated his BCD to much before, when trying to get both himself and Tina boyant, and now without her weight he was very over-boyant and it would have taken precense of mind, time and effort to deflate his BCD, dive after her (passing his allowed depths) and catching her.

About the aledged discrepancies between Gabe's story and his dive computer logs this seems to be in large part due to a lack of knowledge about the capabilities of the dive computer, specifically in how the log of a dive is constructed an the precision of that logging. Examined more closely, the statement of events given by Gabe is in all essential parts compatible with what can actually be found from the dive computer logs.

In regards to the observations of Dr. Stanley Stutz, first of all one must realize he had, by his own account, inly some 20-30 previous dives, and that was some 10 years ago, meaning he was very inexperienced. Also, he never stated seing Gabe "Bear Hugging" Tina, the inly reference to a Bear Hug he made in any of his statements was when observing Wade bringing her to surface. Also, looking at the timing of events, Dr. Stutz was probably not even in the water, and certainly ot descended below surface at the time Gabe lost contact of Tina, and was likely ibservi g something else entirely and later perceiving this as the event in question. One have to remember, eye witness accounts are unreliable at best, especially comming from someone being in an unfamiliar environment, focused on a complex task without thorough experience in poor visibility.

Another obvious error in the article is how Wade Singelton got involved in the rescue. He was already decended when the event occured, and probably found Tina even before Gabe surfaced. He was also at a depths of about 20 meters when observing her (she was at about 25)

About Gabes differing accounts, that is pretty much unsubstantiated claim by the policed. Looking at his actual statements (16 on record I believe) there sure are differences, but only in unimportant details and all within the range of variability one would expect from memory over an extended period of time. All his statements basically tell the same story in regards to all important events.

Finally, about Gabe remaining in Spoilsport while Tina was being resuscitated on Jazz II, no accounts show that Gabe was ever informed that Tina had actually been brought aboard the other vessel before after the resuscitation attempts ended.

There are other details that are questionable, outright wrong or stated as facts when they really are opinions in the article which I don't want to go into in detail before some discussion on why the article is as it currently is, and if anyone would have issues with certain parts being rewritten. All in all it would seem to me that Gabe might well have been guilty of setting dive security aside, thereby risking his and his wives lives, and also of making a number of mistakes when attempting to rescue her which he shouldn't have if he was as knowledgable as he stated, so he doubtlessly was guilty of dangerous neglect, but premeditated murder seems much more questionable than the article indicates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.59.74.229 (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

All of the above is just your opinion. If you have sourced facts not represented in the article, you are welcome to contribute. If you are in any way associated with Gabe Watson, please go away now. WWGB (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Death of Tina Watson/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

This page could quite easily be seen as a de facto argument for Watson's protagonists and I think it is. It needs to be recgonised by yourselves, that pleadings in Court proceedings, are no more than allegations. They do not take on the substance of proofs, until proved to the satisfaction of a court of competant jurisdiction. The Coroners Court is not a court of criminal jurisdiction. It is a civil court. It is statute barred from making findings of criminal behavior. The Coroner made that quite clear in his findings. Your story is quite misleading on this, and it becomes misleading because it fails to rely on proper primary sources. As primary sources are available, this page then lacks even a scintilla of academic integrity. May I suggest you include in your sources, the following two links: Christina Mae Watson - Coronial Findings and Some pathology of air embolism in divers You should alter your story to reflect those findings that were made and remove references to findings that were never made. You should distinguish between allegations and matters that have been proven. In the court record there is reference by the Court to the use of the word "oxygen" to describe the gas Tina breathed. [Oxygen] is a resuscitatory gas as well as a gas breathed underwater with special equipment. One author of this Wiki has changed the Court word [oxygen] to the word [air]. No authority is cited for the change and no reason is given by this author as to why he/she changed the word. The change is of some significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by O o o (talk • contribs) 01:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Court comments I have added by the Trial Judge as to (a) guilt and (b) penalty have been removed from the Wiki page, however, they were literal quotes from the trial judge which explained the guilt of Watson and reasons considered by the Court as to the sentance. To remove such proper citations speaks volumes as to the motivation behind the creation of this Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by O o o (talk • contribs) 01:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 13:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death of Tina Watson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029032838/http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?StoryName=524905 to http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?StoryName=524905

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)